Fast Track in Nassau County Family Court for Reuniting Parents and Children

October 4, 2013 By

father's rights attorneysNassau County has a new program to reunite children who have been taken away from their parents. This new program was set up by Nassau County Family Court Supervising Judge, Edmond Dane. The program is specifically designed to reunite parents with children under the age of 5. The fast track program is called “Babies Can’t Wait.”

Babies Can’t Wait

The program has been set up in conjunction with the Nassau Family Court, the Nassau County Department of Social Services and Adelphi University’s Institute for Parenting. Adelphi’s parenting institute is a private organization that is designed to promote relationships between children and their parents.

The program is designed to reduce risk, in cases involving either child abuse or child neglect, that children will be harmed. It tries to establish a secure caregiver for infants. There is a preference in the program for biological parents.

The program uses a team approach. The team is comprised of assigned attorneys, family members, an infant mental health specialist from Adelphi, a court facilitator, a deputy County Attorney, and foster care workers who will meet monthly before Judge Dane.

Judge Dane has stated he hopes the new program will be successful in reducing terminations of parental rights. The program also seeks to keep children under the age of 5 out of foster care.

Judge Dane has stated “when a child is taken from a parent, regardless of age, there is trauma.” He further stated “separation affects bonding and attachment especially with babies.” The program is designed to engage parents from the beginning and monitor their progress more often. It is the intent of the program to speed negotiations and result in quicker resolution of infant related cases.

Adelphi University

Adelphi University is providing joint therapy for parents and children. These therapy sessions focus on interaction and care of the children. The therapy sessions allow for additional visitation between the children and the parent.

The Prior Social Service Program Involving Removed Children in Nassau County

Without this program, when the Department of Social Services removes a child from a home, the parent or the child’s guardian has to go to the Family Court and file a petition for a hearing. The Judge then makes a determination at the time of the hearing whether the child faces an imminent danger. If the judge determines that the child faces an imminent danger, the child is not allowed to go home.

The case is then adjourned and a Fact Finding Hearing is held to determine if the child has been abused or neglected. In the event there is a finding of either child abuse or child neglect by the judge an additional hearing called a Dispositional Hearing is held. A Dispositional Hearing can be equated to a sentencing hearing in a criminal case. As a result of these hearings, an investigation is initiated by the Department of Social Services. This investigation takes a number of months and sometimes as long as a year.

Permanency Hearing

After the investigation a Permanency Hearing is held. The purpose of this hearing is to determine long term what shall happen to the child. Should the child be given back to the mother? Should the mother or father’s parental rights be terminated? Should the child be given to a guardian?

Babies Can’t Wait Program

Under Judge Dane’s Babies Can’t Wait program a Fact Finding Hearing is finished in as little as a month and a half. The Permanency Solution for the family would be decided within a year. Judge Dane claims “the longer you let a trial linger the less your chances of success. We want to make sure the focus is on the services rather than the abuse allegation.”

Judge Dane takes the position if the parents deserve it, he wants to give them an opportunity to improve the situation and get back into a relationship with their children.

Hooray for Judge Dane!father's rights assistance

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Internet Downloaded Separation Agreement Found Valid

September 30, 2013 By

father's rights lawyerIn a recent case before Justice Leonard Steinman sitting in the Supreme Court Divorce Part in Nassau County, a husband had filed a divorce action against his wife. In this proceeding, he sought to incorporate by reference a separation agreement into the judgement of divorce. The wife argued the agreement should not be allowed to be incorporated into the judgement of divorce. She claimed she was induced by fraud into signing the agreement.

A motion was made to determine whether the agreement was valid. The Court found the agreement was drafted by the wife. She found the agreement on an internet website. After downloading and printing the agreement she presented it to the husband, he executed it.
The agreement had a waiver of spousal maintenance. It also stated there would be “no demand for child support payments”. The agreement required the parties sell the marital home and equally divide the proceeds. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the parties opted out of exchanging financial net worth statements. Neither the husband nor the wife were represented by an attorney during the course of the negotiation and execution of the agreement. However, the parties did properly execute the agreement before a notary public and they filed it with the County Clerk of Nassau County.

The Agreement Terms Were Followed

The Court found that the parties had followed the terms of the agreement after its execution. The Court found the parties had lived separate lives. They did not share a bedroom together. They also filed separate tax returns.

The Court found the separation agreement executed by the wife was not unfair or inequitable. The judge ruled the wife’s claims that the parties did not intend to be bound by the agreement were undercut by “its unambiguous terms.” He made this decision even though the wife waived spousal maintenance in the agreement.

It should be noted, the husband acknowledged that the child support provision does not comply with the Child Support Standards Act. However, he agreed that this could be severed from the agreement and the rest of the agreement could be enforced.

Justice Steinman found the agreement to be valid and incorporated it into the judgement of divorce.

Conclusion

In this case, the wife wanted to have her cake and to eat it too. She drafts an agreement and then decides later on she wants more. Justice Steinman found she was not entitled to a second bite at the apple. This is a case where men’s rights were protected.advocate for father's rights

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Divorce Case: Equitable Distribution After Death

September 27, 2013 By

father's rights attorneysRecently, Supreme Court Justice Stacey Bennett sitting in a Matrimonial Part in Nassau County made a decision in an unusual case. A husband started a divorce lawsuit. He was granted a judgment of divorce in this proceeding. Both parties after the divorce were to submit post trial briefs to the court regarding all outstanding economic issues. Then, the husband committed suicide. The wife claimed suicide didn’t stop the divorce action from going forward because the judgement had already been rendered.

Husband Tries to Deny Wife Equitable Distribution

The husband, a physician, in an attempt to deny his wife and children equitable distribution of millions of dollars in assets and life insurance that he possessed, decided to kill himself. At the time the husband committed suicide he was aware he had advanced brain cancer and did not have a significant time to live. Prior to committing suicide the husband changed the beneficiaries on his $2,000,000 life insurance policy and $3,000,000 in his investment accounts. In violation of the court’s order he changed the beneficiaries from his wife and their son and named his mother, who is the executrix of his estate, and his sister as beneficiaries. The suicide took place after each of the parties had rested their presentation to the court but before a final judgment had been entered.

The legal question presented was whether the suicide abated the divorce (stopped it from moving forward) and prevented the Supreme Court Judge handling the case from making a decision on equitable distribution of the assets.

Judge Bennett held “suicide, like murder, is an intentional act and the husband’s estate should not be able to benefit from it by seeking an equitable remedy.” Judge Bennett went on to write in her decision “consequently in the interest of justice, equity and the efficiency of the Court system, this Court finds the right to equitable distribution in this action survives the husband’s suicidal death.”

The husband’s attorney claimed the case needed to be dismissed because the husband was dead. The dismissal of the case after one of the parties dies is called abatement. However, Justice Stacey Bennett said this case didn’t abate because the divorce had been granted already. Justice Bennett’s decision was that she still had jurisdiction to finalize all the remaining economic and financial issues in this divorce proceeding even though the husband died before equitable distribution took place. Justice Bennett took the position the entry of the divorce itself was merely a ministerial act. The case was to continue even after the husband’s death on the issue of equitable distribution.

Novel Legal Question Presented

The legal question presented to Judge Bennett was a novel question of whether an intentional suicide stops a divorce action and whether the issues that were not resolved prior to the death involving equitable distribution survive the death. Judge Bennett wrote, “here, the husband committed suicide and thus those who now represent his interests come to the court with unclean hands”. Judge Bennett’s position was the suicide was specifically designed to prevent the wife and child from receiving the decedent’s assets. Judge Bennett’s decision said the husband’s committing suicide “demonstrated a nefarious pattern of conduct on part of the husband designed to deprive his wife and children of any assets.”father's rights advocate

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

Order of Protection Thrown Out

September 20, 2013 By

father's rights attorneyThe Appellate Division of the Second Department (an appeals court) in the State of New York recently vacated an order of protection obtained by a wife against her husband. The court ruled that the alleged disorderly conduct which took place inside the parties’ home did not sufficiently prove that the husband engaged in disorderly conduct which was intended to cause, or recklessly create, a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

The Story

Mr. and Mrs. Cassie were not getting along. Mrs. Cassie decided one day to pack up her husband’s bags and change the locks to the house. Mr. Cassie came home from work and found he could not get into his house. At some point one of his children let him in. Mr. and Mrs. Cassie had two daughters aged 16 and 17.

An argument ensued on the second floor of the parties’ home while the children were watching TV. Mrs. Cassie called the police alleging her husband had assaulted her. Mr. Cassie denied that he had assaulted her. He voluntarily left the marital residence.

Mrs. Cassie went to the Brooklyn Family Court. She obtained an Order of Protection based on a decision by Judge Anthony Cannataro that determined that Mr. Cassie had committed the family offense of disorderly conduct.

Mr. Cassie appealed.

The Appeal

In his appeal, Mr. Cassie claimed his wife did not make out a prima facie case for disorderly conduct. The Appellate Court agreed. The decision of the Appellate Division was that the disorderly conduct had to have some sort of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. Since this event took place in the family’s home, there was no reckless disregard that might cause public harm. The court found Mrs. Cassie did not prove her case.

The Appellate Court overruled the family court decision and allowed Mr. Cassie back into his house.

About the Author

assistance for fathersElliot Schlissel, Esq. is a father’s rights attorney practicing throughout the metropolitan New York area.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Protecting Men’s Rights in a Divorce

September 18, 2013 By

father's rights lawyerAlthough there are many issues that need to be dealt with in divorce situations, there are two basic themes. The first theme has to do with children, custody and visitation. The second theme has to do with division of assets, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony) and other financial issues.

Punished for Being Successful!?

Men who have worked hard to obtain an excellent education and/or credentials and have strived and dedicated themselves to both their family and their employment initiatives, should not be punished in a divorce situation.

Often men come into our law office with questions such as:

  1.   I have worked hard to develop my business, how can I keep it?
  2. How do I keep my career, provide for my children, and not become a deep pocket to fund my wife’s exorbitant lifestyle?

Planning and Strategy

Fighting a complicated divorce can be similar to fighting a mini war. If negotiations and settlement attempts fail, each side prepares for a battle. This battle is called a trial.

Our office helps our clients develop an effective strategy to preserve their assets, maintain relationships with their children, and not be devastated by the divorce process itself. Approximately 5% of all divorce cases in New York go to trial. The other 95% are settled either before trial or at trial. It therefore is necessary to prepare for trial while continuing to negotiate to obtain the best possible results.

Caring for a Child

A father’s love and devotion for his children is not second string to a mother’s love and devotion to her children. Under the law in the State of New York, both parents are considered to have equal ability to obtain custody of their children. Today, more and more fathers are stepping up to the plate saying “I want custody of my children.” Fathers are dedicating themselves to being in their children’s lives. The former standardized types of visitation that judges handed out in the past do not necessarily meet the father’s needs today.

The Best Interests of the Child

The standard in the State of New York as to who receives custody of the children is what is in the children’s best interest. Judges are forced to make these very difficult decisions. There is no standardized scale rating mothers and fathers for their talents involving child raising, emotional stability, and bonding with their children. There are standards within the statutes in the State of New York but they are general standards. In many situations, judges make decisions on who will receive custody based upon gut reactions that are thereafter qualified within the law.

Children deserve the love, dedication and financial support from both parents. In some cases, joint custody arrangements can be worked out and the parents can amicably raise their children. However, this is not true in all cases. In some cases, the children are going to live with one parent and the other parent is going to visit! If you are a father and seek being more than a visitor in your child’s life, then you need the best, most dedicated, most experienced father’s rights lawyers to protect your interest. At the Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo our father’s rights attorneys have been delivering for our clients for more than 45 years.helping fathers and children

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Stay At Home Fathers

August 14, 2013 By

father's rights attorneyMillions of fathers are involved in raising their children. Fathers who dedicate their lives to help raising their children should be recognized more often for these endeavors by the courts in New York. Research shows in approximately 25% of all marriages, the mother is the primary bread winner.

As women have become more ambitious in fulfilling their careers more issues concerning father’s rights have developed. Many fathers feel they are not given sufficient parenting time with their children. Some conservatives in the United States argue against the concept of the nurturing father. They claim nurturing fathers act as substitute mothers and this denies children a masculine role model. I believe this is a lot of hogwash!

Equal Rights For Fathers

Feminists in the 70’s wanted equal rights for mothers. In the State of New York, since 1989, mothers have equal rights. When mother’s obtained equal rights, fathers also received equal rights.

Two Sided Feminist Arguments

Feminists today agree that men should be more involved in raising their children. However today’s feminists only want fathers to be treated equally when it is convenient for them.

Traditional Role

In the traditional family, the father goes out to work and the mother stays home and raises the children. The majority of families in the United States raise their children in this manner. However, this majority is getting smaller and smaller. The time for father’s rights is now!

Facts About The Author

advocate for fathersElliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is a father’s rights attorney representing fathers throughout the metropolitan New York area.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Custody Proceedings – Cross Examination Of Forensic Experts

October 5, 2012 By

father's rights lawyersIn custody proceedings, in the Family Courts and Supreme Courts of New York State, the Judge will often order the parties, the child or children and the significant others of the parties be interviewed by forensic experts. Thereafter, the forensic expert usually issues a written report. Should the case go to trial, the forensic expert will testify at trial with regard to the material in his or her report.

Neutral Forensic Experts

            The forensic reports of neutral experts are submitted to the Court. The attorneys for the parties are entitled to review the reports. In most instances the attorneys are not allowed to provide a copy of the report to their clients. The attorneys usually take notes as to what is in the report and utilize their notes with regard to the examination and cross examination of the forensic expert at the time of trial.

Forensic Expert Reports And Individuals Representing Themselves

            What happens if the individual in the custody dispute represents himself or herself?   In these situations shouldn’t the individual representing him or herself be given access to the report so he or she will be on equal standing as the attorney for the other party with regard to the testimony of the expert at the trial?

In a recent case before an Appeals Court (the Appellate division of the First Department) entitled Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner, the issue of individuals representing themselves and having access to forensic expert reports was dealt with. The case involved the mother trying to relocate her child from New York to North Carolina. The father objected to the relocation claiming it would have a negative impact on his parenting time with the child. A forensic report was prepared. The father sought to review the report. His request was denied.  The case went to trial and the mother won.

The father appealed claiming that he should have been given access to the forensic report which the Court accepted into evidence.  The Appellate Division found the trial court had made an error in not allowing the father to review his report. However, they found this was “harmless error.” How could this be harmless error?

Fairness Requires Equal Access to Forensic Expert Reports

            Litigants should have equal access to all material that impacts their case. In this case, the father representing himself was forced to try his case at a disadvantage. The other attorney was fully cognizant of the material in the expert report prior to it being presented into evidence. He was not.

Due Process Denied

            Justice David Saxe, who had a dissenting opinion on this case, stated “expert reports by mental health professionals are an important element at trial of custody litigation. The procedure typically employed by the New York trial courts in recent years is to provide a copy of the expert’s report to the attorneys, with the direction that the copies are not to be provided to their clients or others outside the litigation team.”  The Judge went on to write in the event a litigant is self-represented, a copy of the report should be maintained at the Courthouse and provided to the litigant. The dissenting opinion was correct and the majority opinion was wrong.

About the Attorney

            Elliot S. Schlissel is a fathers’ rights lawyer representing fathers in child custody, visitation, child support, relocation cases and all other issues involving father’s parental rights. He has been practicing law for more than 34 years.divorce assistance for fathers

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mother’s Relocation Of Children Denied

September 27, 2012 By

father's rights attorneyIn a case in Monroe County, Supreme Court, Justice Dollinger took into consideration the preference of two boys, 11 and 14 years of age, in making a decision to allow them to stay in Rochester with their father. Their mother had brought an application to the Court to relocate the children to Washington DC. She had recently received a new position as an assistant dean at Howard University. The Judge, in his decision, stated “that consistency of their preference and the sound basis for it – it is undisputed they have friends, opportunity, activities, and substantial academic success in Rochester – requires that this Court ascribe some significant weight to their choice.”

Court Didn’t Want To Move Children From A Strong Environment

The Judge in his opinion also stated “it is undisputed the sons are thriving in Monroe County.” Both excel in academic performance; both are heavily involved in activities from Lego robotics, to boy scouts, music, religious instruction and other activities. Neither parent could cite a single example in which the two sons have not achieved substantial success in their home community.  Both boys had expressed their wishes to remain in Rochester. The Court found both the father and mother were excellent parents.  The Court took into consideration the relationship between both the custodial and non-custodial parent.  The Court looked at the degree to which the children’s lives might be enhanced by the move. The Court also took into consideration preserving the custodial relationship between the mother and the children concerning the move. The mother argued for continuing her custodial relationship with the children and that the move to Washington would provide them with cultural and academic opportunities.

Father’s Rights Protected

The father promised to keep the sons involved in the activities in the locality in Rochester, attend the same church and maintain a relationship with their friends. The court, in its decision, stated “in this Court’s judgment, the relocation to Washington, DC would impact the quality of the visitation as well as the casual, easygoing quality described by the father as the interaction with his sons.”  The Judge further wrote “if the father were required to visit his sons in Washington, there is no evidence as to how he would achieve reasonable visitation while staying in a hotel, for example. Based on these factors the quantity and quality of the father’s visitation will be substantially impacted by the relocation.”

It should be noted the sons, prior to the relocation, lived with the mother and the father had visitation on alternative weekends and two evenings a week.

This is a victory for fathers’ rights advocates!father's rights advocates on long island

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,
« Previous Page